Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

SCOTUS and Breast Cancer
Quote | Reply
Sadly, it comes 20 years too late...but still:


http://www.nytimes.com/...-be-patented.html?hp
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and Breast Cancer [Francois] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I saw this and am very happy. As you said though, very late. It is my understanding that ovarian cancer is particularly deadly.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jen

"In order to keep a true perspective on one's importance, everyone should have a dog that worships him and a cat that will ignore him." - Dereke Bruce
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and Breast Cancer [JenSw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
projected diagnosed in 2013: 22,000
projected deaths in 2013: 14,000

yes...pretty bleak.
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and Breast Cancer [Francois] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hopefully this ruling opens up opportunities for research and development of new, affordable treatments. Makes me sick a company put profits before that but also it isn't surprising.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jen

"In order to keep a true perspective on one's importance, everyone should have a dog that worships him and a cat that will ignore him." - Dereke Bruce
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and Breast Cancer [Francois] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Unfortunately all drug companies are in it for primarily profit, we have several medications that are in very short supply because the cost to manufacture is higher than the profit, these are older but very good medications generally speaking. Not sure what the answer is to help as the court system is an expensive way to solve these problems for sure and the government making laws or subsidies for the manufacturing of medications would likely add yet more cost to pharmaceutical products be it in the form of taxes or increased pricing in non generic medications that the companies are manufacturing. It boils down to whether or not we as a society see medicine as a right or commodity, we can't have it both ways it seems. Just my $0.02 worth.
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and Breast Cancer [fembeast] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You need to get more familiar with the case. The key discoveries of myriad were made during the time the PIs were faculty at univ of Utah and were funded by NIH thus tax payers money.

I have no issue with pharma groups making tons from in house research or univ research they fund. But I do in the case of federal funds or state funds for that matter.
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and Breast Cancer [Francois] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Pardon me for the misinterpreting your point and perhaps straying from the topic at hand. However thought that's what forums were about, my bad.
My non-judicial pea sized brain obviously misunderstood the SCOTUS ruling to be based on the fact the genetic material in question was naturally occurring and could not be patented, unlike synthetic genetic material. My bad. Again what the heck was I thinking it was all about the federal dollars paying for the human genome project and hence stealing from the feds.
So just to be entirely clear the crux of the matter for you was federal dollars. Ok so had a corporate entity entirely funded this you would have no problem with continuing this patent and hence testing costs too high for some to obtain.
My thinly veiled disgust for corporate greed I will not apologize for in as much it had contributed to the matter quite entirely in my mind. Should corporations not make money, of course not, not my point either, but it seems in the realm of medicine as it pertains to the health of many perhaps there needs to be a limit to the profits.
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and Breast Cancer [fembeast] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No no...I didn't say it was fine...but you brought up the drug case. A pharma group that develops a drug entirely in house and does want a patent on it entirely has the right to the patent.
Another company however has the option to develop a drug that will work better.
In the case of Myriad vs. Am. Assoc. for Molecular Pathology, that isn't the case. As I said in another thread, myriad (despite what the press has repeated many times) does not hold a patent
on the genes of their mutations. They hold 19 patents on ways to analyze them, to sequence them, to test for loss of heterozygosity, etc. So technically they don't hold a patent on the genes
or mutations, but effectively prevent anyone to come up with their own way to address the problem. So regardless of where the money is coming from, that is not ok with me at all. I answered
that because you mentioned pharma groups...which are different.
Note that the patents of myriad expire this year. BUT there are 2000 other such patents in various companies that could affect many lives, so this ruling is an excellent one.

Many researchers agree that this was a good decision, but several have express a concern that this may hurt innovation. I entirely agree with your last sentence by the way (and I am in clinical
research).
Quote Reply